Talk:Gem (disambiguation)

Removal of content reverted

@Gabriella701: Please don't delete large amounts of content without discussion. This is not a suitable page for a simple redirect to gemstone; this is a disambiguation page for the term "Gem", which has other meanings. Please read more about disambiguation by following the links in the box above. Thanks! Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request with Gem redirected to Gemstone. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Gem → Gem (disambiguation) – Simply put, I agree with the opening statement of this disambiguation page that "gem" usually refers to "Gemstone", so Gem should redirect there per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a suitable page for the proposed type of move. Content on this page is exactly what a reader is likely to need when they search Wikipedia for the term "gem". Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: All entries on the disambiguation page seem to be based on or created due to the historical meaning of the word, which would be the definition at the article Gemstone. I'd go as far as saying that Gemstone should be moved to Gem as well per WP:PRECISE, but I'm abstaining for the time being since that may not be as accepted as this move. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • See WP:DABNAME for discussion that's exactly on point. You don't make a redirect the primary topic; by definition, redirects aren't primary articles! And you aren't proposing concurrently moving the existing Gemstone to Gem (which I would not support). Therefore, this page is correctly named, exactly as it is. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• You are correct that redirects aren't articles, they are redirects. However, there are several cases where an ambiguously-named redirect targets a specific article (WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT), such as Breadwinner, AD, Tropic, Angry ... just to name a few. With the rationale above you present, all of those titles should be disambiguation pages as well. That, and I'm quite familiar with WP:DABNAME; that guideline explains to readers how to name a page based on its contents; the point it states is how to name a disambiguation page based on ambiguous examples of the term with no mentions and disregarding any primary topic claims that have been established. The rationale provided above seems to compare my nomination statement above like comparing apples to oranges; I'm making a primary topic claim for the term "gem", not trying to invalidate WP:DABNAME since if a primary topic for the term is established for "gem", the disambiguation page has to move to Gem (disambiguation). Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• The examples you gave were very helpful to me. I now see your point. I remain opposed, but I now recognize that your proposal is not unacceptable; it's a valid alternative that I don't prefer. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The dab page already places gemstone as if it was a primary topic, and while there are lots of other entries, none of them come close to being considered for primacy. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Gemstone is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Khestwol (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. A clear primary topic, for which other meanings can be suitably disambiguated with a link to the disambiguation page in the hatnote. bd2412 T 21:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.